ORDER

In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.803/2017 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151, CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

4. The material on record discloses that the petitioner –

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.803/2017 against the respondents herein seeking the following reliefs:

“ (1) Pass a judgment and decree, by declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

(2) Pass a judgment and decree that the sale deed bearing No.JAL-1-01329/2016-17 in Book-I, stored in C.D.No.JALD.221, registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala) Bengaluru executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiffs and the same as sham document.

(3) Pass a judgment and decree that the consent deed dated 11.11.2016 which is registered as document No.238/2016 in Book No.1, stored in CD No.JALD.223 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala), Bengaluru, executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is not binding on the plaintiffs and the same as sham document.

(4) Pass a judgment and decree by way of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants, their agents, attorney holder or anybody acting on behalf of the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(5) Any such relief or reliefs as deem fit in the circumstances and situation of the case;

(6) For cost”.

5. By judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff by granting the aforesaid reliefs sought for by them. As can be seen from the declaration granted by the Trial Court, registered sale deed dated 23.07.2016 and registered consent deed dated 11.11.2016 are declared to not be binding upon the plaintiffs.

6. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023 passed in favour of petitioners-plaintiffs had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents. Under these circumstances, petitioner-plaintiff filed an instant application seeking a direction to the Jurisdictional Sub Registrar to make necessary entries regarding the decree in the records pertaining to the suit schedule property. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the said application, aggrieved by the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

7. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has rejected the application on the sole ground that the relief sought for by the petitioner was not for cancellation of the sale deed but for declaration simpliciter and no decree for cancellation of the sale deed and consent deed, had been passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. It is also pertinent to note that in identical circumstances in W.P.No.54861/2013 dated 08.04.2015 arising out of a decree passed by the Competent Civil Court, this Court held as under:

“ The petitioner contends that he is the purchaser of a site bearing No.32 carved out of Sy.No.58 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring east to west 40 ft. and north to south 44 ft. from Malla @ Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder K.Nanjegowda under a deed of sale at Annexure ‘A’ dated 10.6.1989.It appears that Malla @ Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder C.R.Chandra sold the said site under a deed of sale dated 7.7.2006 in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.6754/2007 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore City for a decl